Disorder and Social Control

# Disorder and Social Control
## Experimental Evidence on Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior
### Ross Matsueda Charles Lanfear Lindsey Beach
### Jan 19, 2022

---

# Outline

1. Theoretical Framework

2. Project Structure

3. Experiments

* Lost Letter
   * Mailbox Experiment
   * Littering Intervention
   * Litter Clean-Up
   
4. Summary

---

### Neighborhood social control and crime

???

Our focus crime

Crime always has risks

Prosocial action does not always have risk but risk is an underappreciated element

---

# Broken Windows

[Wilson & Kelling (1982)](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/) describe a system where community disorder (1) increases crime by 
signalling low social control to offenders and (2) decreases actual social control by reducing willingness to use public spaces.
--

![Broken Windows](data:image/png;base64,#img/broken_windows_pretty.svg)

]

* B, E: Disorder and crime constrain social relations and impede control.

* C, D: Social control inhibits both disorder and crime.
]

.centernote[
*This model is under-identified without instruments, manipulations, or repeated observations.*
]

---

# Collective Efficacy

[Sampson & Raudenbush (1999)](https://doi.org/10.1086/210356) contend that disorder and crime are both manifestations of low collective efficacy—the community's capacity for informal social control.
--

.pull-right40[
* C, D: Disorder and crime are products of low collective efficacy—social control—which is exogenous (B, E).

* A: Disorder has no direct impact on crime.
]

---

# Our Review

Adjudicating between these models is difficult—[see our review for a discussion](https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041541).

---

### [Keizer, Lindenberg, & Steg (2008)](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161405)

### [Sampson & Raudenbush (1999)](https://doi.org/10.1086/210356)

---

## Keizer, Lindenberg, & Steg (2008)

Keizer et al. used disorder manipulations and recorded norm violation with field experiments in Grongingen, the Netherlands.

Multiple interventions show a consistent positive relationship with norm violation.
--

![Keizer](data:image/png;base64,#img/keizer.svg)

]

* High **internal validity** from experimental design.

* Single sites in one city: No examination of context, indirect pathways, or reciprocal effects.
]

---

## Sampson & Raudenbush (1999)

Simultaneous equations of crime, disorder, and collective efficacy in Chicago neighborhoods, using survey-measured collective efficacy and a novel objective measure of disorder: Video of block faces coded by researchers.

]

.pull-right[
* Effect of neighborhood disorder on crime (A) absent conditional on collective efficacy (B,D)

* Control for crime impact on collective efficacy (E), but assume no disorder feedback on collective efficacy (absent B).

* High **external validity**: *Real* disorder and crime.
]

---

# Key Question

### How do we reconcile these results?

### *But first, an aside...*

---

# Prosocial Behavior and Risk

Broken Windows and Collective Efficacy focus on crime—which always has risks—but both are also theories of **prosocial behavior**.

Broken windows implies disorder attenuates prosocial behavior through *fear of victimization* and subsequent withdrawal from community life.

Collective efficacy predicts many prosocial behaviors:1
* **Returning lost letters**
* **Sanctioning norm-violators**
* Voting
* Providing CPR

.footnote[[1] [Sampson (2012)](https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo5514383.html)]

Engaging in social control—sanctioning—is a *risky prosocial behavior*.

Prosocial action does not always feature risk but *risks and costs of prosocial behavior are underappreciated elements*.

---

# Research Questions

Our goal is testing the micro-level mechanisms that underlie Broken Windows and Collective Efficacy.

Does disorder increase norm-violations and crime as suggested by Broken Windows?

* Does disorder also inhibit prosocial behavior?

Or is this relationship spurious once collective efficacy is controlled, as suggested by Sampson?

* Is activation of collective efficacy conditional on context?
* Does collective efficacy limit exposure to disorder via clean-up?

.centernote[
*To answer these questions, this study links field experiments embedded in Seattle neighborhoods to ecometric data from the 2002-2003 Seattle Neighborhoods and Crime Survey.*
]

---

---

1. **Lost Letter**

* Update measure of collective efficacy.
   * Test causal effect of letter context on prosocial behavior.

2. **Mailbox Experiment**

* Test causal effect of disorder on crime (A) / prosocial behavior (replicate Keizer et al. 2008).
   * Measure association between collective efficacy and crime / prosocial behavior.

3. **Littering Intervention**

* Test causal effect of disorder on sanctioning (B).
   * Test causal effect of interpersonal context on sanctioning.
   * Measure association between collective efficacy and sanctioning.

4. **Litter Clean-Up**

* Measure association between collective efficacy and disorder removal (D).

---

![Experiments](data:image/png;base64,#img/experiments_pretty.svg)

???

Paths E and C are hard to isolate

Can't use crime as an intervention

Crime is a rare event to observe

Sanctioning is difficult intervention

---

# Number of Trials

![](data:image/png;base64,#cess_slides_files/figure-html/unnamed-chunk-2-1.svg)

---

![](data:image/png;base64,#cess_slides_files/figure-html/unnamed-chunk-3-1.svg)

---
class:inverse
# The Lost Letter

---
# Lost Letter: Method

Replication of [Milgram et al. (1965)](https://doi.org/10.1086/267344) and [Sampson (2012)](https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo5514383.html).

2,938 letters were dropped on Seattle sidewalks for passersby to encounter.1

.footnote[[1] Drops conducted on foot in center city and by car in most tracts--at cost of one car accident. ]

24 letters—8 per addressee—were dropped in each census tract:
  * Charles F. Landers Sr. (Personal)
  * Friends of Black Lives Matter (BLM)
  * American Neo-Nazi Party (Nazi)

Mailed letters were received at a PO Box monitored by the research team.

Letters were geocoded to drop locations.

---
# Lost Letter: Model

.pull-right[
* Returning a lost letter is a low-risk pro-social intervention highly correlated with collective efficacy (G)1.
]

.footnote[
[1] See [Sampson (2012)](https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo5514383.html) and [Milgram, Mann, and Harter (1965)](https://doi.org/10.1086/267344).
 
 
 
]

---

count:false
# Lost Letter: Model

.pull-right[
* Returning a lost letter is a low-risk pro-social intervention highly correlated with collective efficacy (G)1.

* This may be used to update the 2002-2003 SNCS collective efficacy measures which may have shifted over time.2
]

.footnote[
[1] See [Sampson (2012)](https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo5514383.html) and [Milgram, Mann, and Harter (1965)](https://doi.org/10.1086/267344).

[2] Note however that collective efficacy is persistent ([Sampson 2012](https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo5514383.html)).
]

---
# Lost Letter: Results

| *Study* (Letter Address) | *Return Rate* | `$\rho(CE)$` 
|:--------------------------------|--------|------------|
|*Milgram et al. (1965)*1 | | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Medical Research Associates | 70% | -- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Friends of the Community Party | 70% | -- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Friends of the Nazi Party | 25% | -- |
|*Sampson (2012)*2 | 33% | .41 |
|*SNCP*3 | | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Charles F. Landers Sr. | 79% | .35 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Friends of Black Lives Matter | 71% | .32 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; American Neo-Nazi Party | 24% | .03 |

* Our results closely mimic Milgram et al. (1965).
* Collective efficacy does not predict Neo-Nazi letter returns.

---

## .blue[Mailed] and .rust[Unmailed] Letters

---
# Updating Collective Efficacy

* Sampson (2012) found `$A = .73$` over 7 years.
* Assume `$A = .50$` over 12 years.
* We find `$\rho(Z_1Y) = .35$` for personal letters.
]

---

count:false
# Updating Collective Efficacy

* Sampson (2012) found `$A = .73$` over 7 years.
* Assume `$A = .50$` over 12 years.
* We find `$\rho(Z_1Y) = .35$` for personal letters.

Extrapolation:

* `$\rho(Z_1Y) = A*B$`
* `$.35 = .50 * B$`
* `$B = .70$`
]

Under some assumptions,

* Collective efficacy is highly correlated with letter returns.
* We have an updated measure of collective efficacy.

---

---

---

# Mailbox: Method

* A letter containing a visible $5 bill is left near mailbox for passersby to encounter.

---

* A letter containing a visible $5 bill is left near mailbox for passersby to encounter.

* Litter and a sign board with graffiti are introduced to manipulate disorder.

* Researchers record whether participants mail, steal, or ignore the envelope.1

.footnote[[1] Perceived sex, age, and group size of participants were also recorded to adjust for compositional differences of tracts.]

* We conducted 405 trials with 3,671 participants in 20 Seattle census tracts.

---

# Mailbox: Model

Objective: Causal test of direct effect of disorder on crime (A).

---

# Mailbox: Model

Our Experiment: Causal tests of direct effects of disorder on crime and prosocial behavior---and observational test of collective efficacy.

---

# Mailbox: Results

<table style="width:70%">
 <tr>
 <td style="font-size:115%" colspan="5">Mailbox: Participant Actions</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <th>Condition</th>
 <th>Walk-By</th>
 <th>Mail</th>
 <th>Theft</th>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td rowspan="2">Control</td>
 <td>1629</td>
 <td>208</td>
 <td>33</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td>87.1%</td>
 <td>11.1%</td>
 <td>1.8%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td rowspan="2">Treatment</td>
 <td>1637</td>
 <td>136</td>
 <td>28</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td>90.9%</td>
 <td>7.6%</td>
 <td>1.6%</td>
 </tr>
</table>

Key Findings:

* Disorder has **no impact on theft**.1

* Disorder **reduces mailing** (a prosocial behavior)—resulting in the letter remaining on the ground longer.

* Collective efficacy is associated with **lower theft**, but **not more mailing**.

---

---

## Littering Intervention: Method

A confederate walks down the street and flagrantly litters near a trash can in view of passersby.1

Researchers record if confederate is sanctioned—**risky prosocial behavior**—or litter disposed of by participant—**low-risk prosocial behavior**. *Content* of sanction is also recorded.

Litter and a sign board with graffiti are introduced to manipulate disorder.

Replicated with three confederates of varying sex and race to manipulate interpersonal context which may influence evaluations of risk:2
 * Black Male
 * White Male
 * White Female

We conducted 576 trials in 12 Seattle census tracts.

---

# Littering Intervention: Model

---

* Norm-Violation is *fixed*—all relationships are conditional on the offense occurring.
]

---

count:false
# Littering Intervention: Model

* Norm-Violation is *fixed*—all relationships are conditional on the offense occurring.

* Test effect of interpersonal context of norm violation on sanctioning (L).
]

---

count:false
# Littering Intervention: Model

* Norm-Violation is *fixed*—all relationships are conditional on the offense occurring.

* Test effect of interpersonal context of norm violation on sanctioning (L).

* Captures association between collective efficacy and sanctioning (M).
]

---

# Results: Sanctions

<table style="width:70%">
 <tr>
 <td style="font-size:115%" colspan="5">Litter Intervention: Sanctions</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <th> Condition</th>
 <th>Black Male</th>
 <th>White Male</th>
 <th>White Female</th>
 <th> All</th>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td rowspan="2">Control</td>
 <td>2</td>
 <td>2</td>
 <td>9</td>
 <td>13</td> 
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td>.021</td>
 <td>.021</td>
 <td>.103</td>
 <td>.045</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td rowspan="2">Treatment</td>
 <td>1</td>
 <td>8</td>
 <td>4</td>
 <td>13</td> 
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td>.011</td>
 <td>.091</td>
 <td>.043</td>
 <td>.045</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td rowspan="2">Both</td>
 <td>3</td>
 <td>10</td>
 <td>13</td>
 <td>26</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td>.016</td>
 <td>.052</td>
 <td>.068</td>
 <td>.045</td>
 </tr>
</table>

Key Findings:

* No *unconditional* effect of disorder on sanctions—a risky prosocial action.
   * Disorder *interacts* with confederate race/gender.

--
* Collective efficacy and letter returns did not predict sanctioning (M).

--
* Sanctioning varies widely by confederate in both *quantity* and *content*.
   * White female: *Confrontational* sanctions usually from men.
   * Black male: *Non-confrontational* sanctions only from women.
   * White male: *Non-confrontational* sanctions, men and women.

???

LB: 11/13 from men
TP: 3 sanctions from women
CL; 6/10 sanctions from men

---

# Results: Throwing Away

<table style="width:70%">
 <tr>
 <td style="font-size:115%" colspan="5">Litter Intervention: Throw-Aways</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <th> Condition</th>
 <th>Black Male</th>
 <th>White Male</th>
 <th>White Female</th>
 <th> All</th>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td rowspan="2">Control</td>
 <td>3</td>
 <td>7</td>
 <td>7</td>
 <td>17</td> 
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td>.032</td>
 <td>.079</td>
 <td>.079</td>
 <td>.059</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td rowspan="2">Treatment</td>
 <td>3</td>
 <td>3</td>
 <td>4</td>
 <td>10</td> 
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td>.032</td>
 <td>.032</td>
 <td>.043</td>
 <td>.035</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td rowspan="2">Both</td>
 <td>6</td>
 <td>10</td>
 <td>11</td>
 <td>27</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td>.032</td>
 <td>.052</td>
 <td>.057</td>
 <td>.047</td>
 </tr>
</table>

We also evaluated if our interventions impacted throwing away the dropped litter—a low risk, non-confrontational prosocial action.

Key Findings:

* Disorder treatment reduces throwing away.

* This effect also conditional on confederate characteristics.
--

* Collective efficacy and letter returns do not predict throwing away.

---

---

# Litter Clean-Up: Method

]

---

count:false
# Litter Clean-Up: Method

* A concealed camera and motion detector record when the litter is cleaned up and how many people pass by.
]

---

count:false
# Litter Clean-Up: Method

* A concealed camera and motion detector record when the litter is cleaned up and how many people pass by.
]

---

count:false
# Litter Clean-Up: Method

* A concealed camera and motion detector record when the litter is cleaned up and how many people pass by.
   * This permits capturing the relationship between collective efficacy and time to remove disorder.

]

---

count:false
# Litter Clean-Up: Method

* An alternate magazine rack defaced by graffiti and stickers is swapped in to manipulate disorder.
]

---

# Litter Clean-Up: Results

* The experiment was abandoned after a small number of trials.

---

count:false
# Litter Clean-Up: Results

* The experiment was abandoned after a small number of trials.

* In Ravenna, residents reported the magazine racks on Nextdoor as an "eyesore".

* Two magazine racks had locks cut and were removed.

* Thus we were unable to continue experiment *because of collective efficacy* in an affluent neighborhood.

* In contrast, one rack was left *for an entire year* in Capitol Hill without issue.

???

Maybe talk about Coleman and zeal

---
class: inverse
# Summary

---

# Summary 1

2\. Disorder attenuates low-risk, low-cost prosocial actions—mailing letters, throwing away litter—and possibly sanctioning as well (B).
   * Consistent with indirect Broken Windows pathway.
   
   * Suggests feedback effect on collective efficacy.
]

---

# Summary 2

.pull-right[
3\. Collective efficacy predicts some low-risk prosocial action (H,K) but not higher risk actions—sanctioning.
* Sanctioning is thought to be a key mechanism.
* May have insufficient power to detect effect.

4\. Collective efficacy is associated with lower theft (C).
* Unable to explore mechanism.
* Possibly correlated with perceived *risk* of sanction or population composition.
]

---

# Summary 3

.pull-right[
5\. Context matters for prosocial behavior (I).
 * Addresses of letters impact mailing.
 * Target characteristics impact sanctioning.1
 * Activation of collective efficacy is task and context specific.2
]

---

# Prosocial Behavior
### Future research

*We know relatively little about behavioral micro-mechanisms of neighborhood theories of crime, particularly sanctioning.*

Contexts of prosocial behavior are important but neglected considerations for neighborhood theories of crime.

* Collective efficacy is associated with risk factors—such as retaliation from the sanctioned--as well as criminal opportunities (Lanfear 2022).

* Disorder may be a signal for risks or other costs.

* Disorder may signal that interventions will have limited benefit.

* Context may cause general statements of prosocial intentions to differ sharply from actual behavior (see [St. Jean 2007](https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo5298963.html)).

---

# Acknowledgements

Our findings are the result of over 2000 person-hours of field work over four summers. This project was made possible by the participation of graduate student researchers, grant funding, and UW institutional resources.

Anquinette Barry

Chris Hess

John Leverso

Kate O'Neill

Terrence Pope
]

National Science Foundation

UW Royalty Research Fund

### Support

Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences

Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology
]

---
class:inverse
# Thank you!

---

count:false
class:inverse
# Appendices

---

count:false
# Sampling

---

count:false
# Mailbox Models

|                    |  Mail    |  Theft   |     Mail  |   Theft  | 
|:------------------:|:--------:|:--------:|:---------:|:--------:|
|  (Intercept)       | **-2.053** | 0.332    | **-1.467**  | -1.437   | 
|                    | *(0.538)*  | *(1.170)*  |  *(0.579)*  | *(1.329)*  | 
|  Treatment       | **-0.275** | -0.081   |**-0.263**   | -0.098   | 
|                    | *(0.118)*  | *(0.261)*  |  *(0.119)*  | *(0.263)*  | 
|  Coll. Eff.          |  0.265   | **-1.206** |   0.171   | -0.804   | 
|                    | *(0.173)*  | *(0.396)*  |  *(0.181)*  | *(0.424)*  |
|  Walk-by Rate   | **-0.564** | -**0.535** |  **-0.534** | **-0.429** | 
|                    | *(0.063)*  | *(0.132)*  |  *(0.064)*  | *(0.133)*  |
|  Male             |          |          |  -0.094   | **0.880**  | 
|                    |          |          | *(0.117)*   | *(0.296)*  |
|  Non-White         |          |          |  **-0.459** | 0.397    |
|                    |          |          | *(0.144)*   | *(0.272)*  |
|  In Group            |          |          |  **-0.876** | **-1.302** |
|                    |          |          | *(0.161)*   | *(0.475)*  |

???

CE predicts people being in groups

CE predicts fewer men; maybe proxying employment?

---

count:false
# Litter Clean-Up: Alternative

We supposed the speed of return of lost letters was correlated with clean-up time of trash.

As a pilot, in selected tracts, 24 pieces of litter were dropped in the same locations as lost letters and then checked three times over the course of a day.

Neither timing nor a binary measure of clean-up were found to be associated with either lost letter returns or overall collective efficacy.